Governments at the provincial and federal level have not been honest with Canadians about rising health care costs that will someday swamp budgets, the International Monetary Fund warns.

The organization, which is based in Washington, states that with escalating medicare costs and an aging population, Canada's health-care system is unsustainable.

Accordingly, provinces need to be more upfront with Canadians about the true nature of the costs and the best practices for ensuring service can be maintained in the future.

The warning came as the IMF issued its end-of-year report into Canada, which was largely favourable compared to many other nations.

If the current model of absorbing costs silently continues, the IMF states that Canada will be overrun with health costs.

Talk about cutting healthcare has been considered political suicide for decades, and discussion about a semi-private system has long been met with the pejorative "two-tier" moniker stemming from concern about different service levels.

However, the IMF is not alone in its concern, as many think-tanks have issued similar reports in recent years.

But the IMF says that the current model of putting off hard decisions is wrong-headed.

"(IMF directors) encouraged the authorities to increase communication about the attendant challenges to improve public awareness," says the report.

"Increasing transparency and communication about these challenges and their long-run implications would help to increase public awareness and contribute to the debate about possible solutions."

In 2014, the current provincial-federal health arrangement expires, meaning a new agreement will need to be drawn up.

However, the federal government has been criticized for suggesting that transfer payments to the provinces won't increase above the current rate, which is six per cent annually.

In the short-term, however, the IMF said that Canada's economy was performing well relative to other countries.

However, a few "key risks" were identified by the IMF.

"Risks are elevated and tilted to the downside with high household debt levels the main domestic risk, and a weaker U.S. outlook the largest external risk," the report says.

A correction in the housing market, which is overheating, is also a possibility.

"That said, with most mortgages being 'rollover' mortgages with terms of at most five years, any future interest rate increases could put additional strains on already highly indebted households."

Very unlikely. The IMF is sort of a philosophical cousin to the WTO or the World Bank. Their interest lies in facilitating markets and private industry. The state of a private market is not a concern to them, it is in its natural state. Industry must have access to the resources needed to "create wealth", of which government-controlled markets are one. The slightest hint of vulnerability in a public system represents an opportunity for private industry to gain access to more resources. Because of this, due salt should be taken with information presented by this source.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together is aware that with an ageing population and a shrinking birthrate ALL countries are going to face increased costs and increased difficulties in maintaining their healthcare systems, whether public or private. Are you going to offer a constructive argument here, or are you simply gloating inanely about a common problem?

Every facet of our society on a planetary scale is unsustainable. All this bickering and posturing over things like healthcare is pointless. We should be putting every available dollar to finding an alternative to fossil fuels. Oil drives everything. Food, transportation, technology is all dependent on oil and if predictions on peak oil are correct we are going to be in serious peril. It still astounds me that people don't think that our "War on Terror" is nothing but a last ditch grab at the few remaining oil reserves left on the planet.

Every facet of our society on a planetary scale is unsustainable. All this bickering and posturing over things like healthcare is pointless.

Click to expand...

By your logic (inferentially) healthcare is on the wrong side of improving the situation. The inference is that the fundamental origin of the problem is over-population. If that is the case, effective healthcare will simply make things worse.

By your logic (inferentially) healthcare is on the wrong side of improving the situation. The inference is that the fundamental origin of the problem is over-population. If that is the case, effective healthcare will simply make things worse.

Click to expand...

It is making things worse. As technology and healthcare improves the natural environmental controls the planet uses to maintain balance are being eliminated.

We in medicine have allowed you to live longer, thereby allowing you to suffer through more illnesses and degenerative processes in older age.

It's your job to pay for it. While the term "rationing" is a dirty word, with any limited resource, if demand outstrips supply one must "rationally allocate" resources. Our species has some hard choices to make, and a dearth of leadership and wisdom to even begin a constructive dialogue.

I hope you are not implying that we should all aim for less efficient healthcare in the interests of self-preservation.

Click to expand...

For people who accept that there are somewhere between three to thirty times as many humans as this earth (ecosystem) can support, the healthcare situation can be a bit of a quandary. Birth control is an inadequate avenue for dealing with the problem, yet I, personally, am not prepared to voluntarily cede my space that others may get a nano-fraction of relief. After all, I would most likely be replaced by several more rapacious of my species.

It's your job to pay for it. While the term "rationing" is a dirty word, with any limited resource, if demand outstrips supply one must "rationally allocate" resources. Our species has some hard choices to make, and a dearth of leadership and wisdom to even begin a constructive dialogue.

Click to expand...

It's not a dearth of leadership or wisdom, but an excess of stupidity and stubborness.

We in medicine have allowed you to live longer, thereby allowing you to suffer through more illnesses and degenerative processes in older age.

It's your job to pay for it. While the term "rationing" is a dirty word, with any limited resource, if demand outstrips supply one must "rationally allocate" resources. Our species has some hard choices to make, and a dearth of leadership and wisdom to even begin a constructive dialogue.

Click to expand...

Then it's your job to not charge patients $40 for a couple of Advils during a hospital stay.

Then it's your job to not charge patients $40 for a couple of Advils during a hospital stay.

Click to expand...

It's called cost shifting. Those who can pay are charged so that after adjustments by third party payers who reimburse pennies on the dollar, there is enough padding to cover the uninsured who by law cannot be turned away from ER's. This is the great irony of those against "socialized medicine"...you are already paying a significant price (albeit indirectly) for the uninsured.

Univeral healthcare would ensure a baseline level of medical care for all. With emphasis on preventative medicine and healthy lifestyle, we could have the finest healthcare system, not a great (expensive) sickcare system.

It's called cost shifting. Those who can pay are charged so that after adjustments by third party payers who reimburse pennies on the dollar, there is enough padding to cover the uninsured who by law cannot be turned away from ER's. This is the great irony of those against "socialized medicine"...you are already paying a significant price (albeit indirectly) for the uninsured.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know what it is. It shouldn't be allowed. The reason third party payers find ways to pay pennies on the dollar is to ensure a greater profit each year. That shouldn't be allowed either. These middlemen need to be eliminated.

I have no problem with healthcare providers (doctors, nurses, etc.) being paid fairly for their work.

Quote

Univeral healthcare would ensure a baseline level of medical care for all. With emphasis on preventative medicine and healthy lifestyle, we could have the finest healthcare system, not a great (expensive) sickcare system.

The Singapore model has SOME attractive features on the surface. However, comparing Singapore, a small city-state with a younger, more homogenous population, generally eating better, with the US is difficult. Add to that the somewhat paternalistic governament mandates that run smack dab into US citizens' desire for freedom from goverment interference and general sense for a need for equality in care, and you start to run into troubles.

I have no problem with healthcare providers (doctors, nurses, etc.) being paid fairly for their work.

Click to expand...

I don't think most people do. It was thanks to specialists here in Canada that 2 of my kids are still alive to this day, and they did a hell of a lot of work that as far as I'm concerned went above and beyond their salaries, to get things right. I know for a fact that specialists here in Canada are very much underpaid compared to their American counterparts, which helped fuel the exodus a few years back of many outstanding practitioners to south of the border clinics.

Add to that the somewhat paternalistic governament mandates that run smack dab into US citizens' desire for freedom from goverment interference and general sense for a need for equality in care, and you start to run into troubles.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.